VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01349
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01349
Petitioner: A.W.
Filed: 2017-09-27
Decided: 2020-08-31
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Type 1 diabetes, weight loss and abdominal pain
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 27, 2017, A.W., a minor child, by her parent and natural guardian Amber Wilson, filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The petition alleged that A.W. suffered adverse reactions, including Type 1 diabetes, weight loss, and abdominal pain, as a result of receiving the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine on October 11, 2014, and September 15, 2015. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on May 22, 2018, recommending against compensation. Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Francis W. Ruscetti on September 20, 2018. In response, respondent filed expert reports from Dr. Noel Keith Maclaren and Dr. Penelope A. Morel. Petitioner later filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. Ruscetti. The case was reassigned to Special Master Daniel T. Horner on June 5, 2019, and respondent subsequently filed supplemental expert reports. On August 3, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable. Petitioner understood that dismissal would result in a judgment against them and that they would elect to file a civil action rather than accept the Vaccine Program judgment. Respondent did not oppose the motion but reserved the right to question the good faith of the filing in response to any motion for attorneys' fees. Special Master Horner granted the motion to dismiss, finding that A.W.'s medical records did not support the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and that petitioner's medical opinion was not persuasive, especially in light of respondent's competing expert reports. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that an injury was actually caused by a covered vaccine, requiring a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury, substantiated by medical records or opinion. The public decision does not describe the specific medical records, the details of the expert opinions, or the mechanism of causation alleged. The case was dismissed, and judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner A.W., a minor, by her parent Amber Wilson, alleged that the MMR vaccine administered on October 11, 2014, and September 15, 2015, caused Type 1 diabetes, weight loss, and abdominal pain. Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Francis W. Ruscetti, while respondent submitted reports from Drs. Noel Keith Maclaren and Penelope A. Morel. The public decision does not detail the specific medical theory, logical sequence of cause and effect, or proximate temporal relationship presented by petitioner's expert, nor does it describe the specific findings or opinions of respondent's experts or the mechanism of causation. Petitioner voluntarily moved to dismiss the petition, stating an inability to prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence, which Special Master Daniel T. Horner granted, finding the medical records and petitioner's medical opinion unpersuasive against respondent's competing expert reports. The case was dismissed on August 31, 2020, for insufficient proof. Attorneys for petitioner were Renee J. Gentry, and for respondent was Lynn Christina Schlie.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01349-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-31
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/4/2020) regarding 49 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (tkp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01349-UNJ Document 50 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1349V
Filed: August 4, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
A.W., by her parent and natural Special Master Horner
guardian, AMBER WILSON,
Petitioner, Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
v. Dismissing Petition; Measles
Mumps Rubella Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND (MMR); Type 1 Diabetes
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Renee J. Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington Uni. Law School,
Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On September 27, 2017, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that her child suffered
adverse reactions, including Type 1 diabetes, weight loss and abdominal pain as a
result of her receipt of the MMR vaccinations on October 11, 2014 and September 15,
2015. (ECF No. 1.) On May 22, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4 report,
recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 16.)
On September 20, 2018, petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Francis W.
Ruscetti. (ECF No. 21.) In response, respondent filed an expert report from Dr. Noel
Kieth Maclaren and Dr. Penelope A. Morel. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Petitioner filed a
supplemental expert report from Dr. Ruscetti. (ECF No. 36.) This case was reassigned
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the
Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted from public access.

Case 1:17-vv-01349-UNJ Document 50 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 3
to my docket on June 5, 2019. (ECF No. 39.) Subsequently, respondent filed
supplemental expert reports. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.)
On August 3, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the
Petition. (ECF No. 48.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]n investigation of the facts and
science supporting has demonstrated to the Petitioner that they will be unable to prove
. . . entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and that “to proceed any further
would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent,
and Vaccine Program.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner further stated that “[p]etitioners understand
that a decision by the Special Master dismissing their petition will result in a judgment . .
. [and] have been advised that such a judgment will end all of their rights in the Vaccine
Program.” (Id.) Respondent does not oppose the motion but does reserve the right to
question the good faith and reasonable basis for the filing of this petition in opposition to
any motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 1-2.) “The petitioners do intend to
protect their rights to file a civil action in the future,” and “they intend to elect to reject
the Vaccine Program judgment against his and elect to file a civil action.” (Id.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table
– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy the burden
of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) a
medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the
injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from
ruling for petitioner based solely on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records
or medical opinion.
A.W.’s medical records do not support petitioner’s allegations by a
preponderance of the evidence. Although petitioner offered a medical opinion from Dr.
Ruscetti, the medical opinion did not provide persuasive evidence supporting a finding
of entitlement. Moreover, in this case, respondent filed competing medical opinions in
the form of persuasive expert reports refuting petitioner’s allegations. See de Bazan v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Respondent’s
evidence that bears on petitioner’s burden to prove a prima facie case should be
considered even when the burden has not shifted to respondent).
Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision
Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for insufficient proof.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01349-UNJ Document 50 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
3